Syrian government delegates and representatives of the opposition reconvened in Geneva on Monday for a new round of peace talks designed to bring an end to the vicious civil war. But while hopes are high among the process’s international backers, progress is likely to be slow. So slow, in fact, that many Syrians have already given up. “It’s hard to remain hopeful and expect any sort of political process to yield results when we wake up every day to reports of cities being shelled with barrel bombs,” says Mark, a 24-year-old unemployed university graduate in Damascus, referring to the regime’s practice of dropping explosives-packed barrels out of helicopters onto rebel-held areas. Like other Syrians who spoke with TIME via Skype,Mark asked to go by his first name only to protect his security.

This week’s conference, which is expected to last five days, follows a previous round of negotiations that ended Jan. 31 with little to show but a weary acceptance that the process must continue. It was a success only because it marked the first time the opposing sides had faced each other off the battlefield. Then, as now, the core concerns of each camp have little overlap upon which to build an agreement. The opposition demands a “mutually agreed-upon” political transition away from the rule of President Bashar Assad, as laid out at the first Geneva conference (dubbed Geneva 1), in June 2012. The regime wants to drive out the “terrorists” — its term for opposition fighters.

If the first round was about getting the two sides to a negotiating table and talking to each other, this round — call it Geneva 2.1 — will focus on the core issues. According to Western diplomats close to the process, lead U.N. negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi does not want to get bogged down in issues of humanitarian aid, cease-fires or prisoner swaps. While those aspects are important for the well-being of Syrian civilians, they are not likely to lead to a long-term solution to the problem, diplomats say. The government and opposition might discuss those issues in a parallel track, where diplomats hopethat they can deliver valuable confidence-building measures — like access for humanitarian aid — that can build momentum toward a settlement.

Those in the Syrian government, however, believe that the talks will produce nothing at all if the regime is forced to negotiate its own demise and nothing else. “Geneva 2 should open the door to reconciliation, to stability, to a cease-fire and humanitarian relief,” independent Syrian parliamentarian Maria Saddeh told TIME while on a visit to Beirut. “What Geneva should not be about is deciding the future leadership of Syria. That is up to Syrians, and it is not going to work in Geneva.”

Today’s talks follow on the heels of a three-day cease-fire that allowed hundreds of civilians to escape rebel-held areas of the besieged Syrian city of Homs. For more than a year, government checkpoints prevented residents from getting out and food and humanitarian supplies from getting in. But the temporary truce ended in a barrage of mortar and sniper fire that each side blamed on the other, raising questions about the viability of such agreements going forward. If even a temporary cease-fire fails — one negotiated by the U.N. for only a handful of neighborhoods — then what hope is there for results on a wider scale? “After Geneva 1, the regime used chemical weapons to kill Syrians. After Geneva 2, they used barrel bombs,” Homs resident and former pastry chef Bebars, 24, says via Skype, referring to air raids on the city of Aleppo that killed hundreds of Syrians last week. “Any reasonable human being who looks at the regime’s behavior in Geneva and in Syria will come to the conclusion that this regime is mocking the international community.” He too asked to use only his first name in order to protect his family.

Not all Syrians have given up hope, but bitter experience has tempered expectations. The war has already taken an estimated 130,000 lives, grievously injured more than half a million Syrians and driven some 8 million from their homes. Many look at that toll and wonder what else it will take to force the international community to act. “I wouldn’t say Geneva 2 is a complete joke,” says 27-year-old translator Hind Issa, via Skype, from Damascus. “I do believe that in 10 years the political process may eventually pay off. People’s lives are at stake, but this doesn’t seem to be a priority.”

Aryn Baker is the Middle East Bureau Chief for TIME, covering politics, society, culture, religion, the arts and the military in the greater Middle East, including Pakistan and Afghanistan. She currently resides in Beirut, Lebanon.

Britain is facing a serious epidemic of sick leave. As many as 960,000 employees were on sick leave for a month or more each year on average between October 2010 and September 2013, the government revealed on Monday.

More than 130 million days a year were lost to sickness absence in Great Britain, which has a substantial impact on workers, employers and taxpayers.

Employees are facing a yearly bill of around £9 billion for sick pay and associated costs with individuals missing out on £4 billion a year in lost earnings. Around 300,000 people a year fall out of work and into the welfare system because of health-related issues while taxpayers fund around £13 billion a year on health-related sickness benefits and £2 billion a year in healthcare, sick pay reimbursement (PTS).

Minister of state for work and pensions Mike Penning said "As part of the government's long-term economic plan, we are taking action to improve get people back into work. This is a triple-win. It will mean more people with a job, reduced cost for business, and a more financially secure future for Britain".

The Health and Work Service being launched in UK will offer a work-focused occupational health assessment and case management to employees in the early stages of sickness absence.

General Practitioners will be able to refer employees for assessment by the new service once they are absent, or expected to be absent, from work due to illness for four weeks. Employers can also refer employees.

What is becoming clearer all the time is how inflexible the EU is, but more so the elite that run it. They have their own way of determining the path of the EU and reject anything that gets in the way of their vision.

~Instead of responding to problems with the design concepts of the EU, the elite fall back on what is in effect an unchanging barrier to being more effective. They refuse to adjust their vision - "Problem," they say, "What problem?"~The EC was never fit to be the EU executive.